Is pope francis an anti pope

[JosiahOaklin1776]

Is Pope Francis an Antipope?

 

[Genesis315]

Scandalous stuff does not make an antipope nor expel one from the Church. And what is heretical in his encyclical, unless your dogma is liberalism, including the liberal economic system? (sadly it is for too many American conservatives–aka right-liberals–but it isn’t Catholic and never has been).

In any event, the validity of a Pope is a dogmatic fact the Church holds infallibly (cf. CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profesio Fidei 11). One reasons this is a necessity is explained well below:

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

Further, as the First Vatican Council and Council of Constance defined, the Church must have a perpetual succession of Popes. Therefore, when she is without one, she must (even with divine assistance) recognize it, be able to elect a new one, and then actually proceed to elect a new one. Otherwise she could continue indefinitely without one, which is impossible. In this case, as the Church has always done, she recognized Benedict XVI had ceased to be Pope, elected Francis the new Pope, and has continued to recognize him as Pope to this day.

 

[RhodesianSon]

No he’s not

 

[jredden92]

It is pretty inflammatory. It should at least be moved to Non-Catholic religions.